[Info-vax] Security, support and VMS, was: Re: A new VMS?

[Phillip Helbig undress to reply]

In article <ifdch3Fsc01U1 at mid.individual.net>, Bill Gunshannon
<bill.gunshannon at gmail.com> writes: 

> >>> VMS is not Unix or Windows.
> >>>
> >>> This is good because it has functionality that neither of them have.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I was going to let this slide by, but it just stuck in my
> >> craw.
> >>
> >> What "functionality" does VMS have that Unix and Windows don't?
> >>
> >> Remember, we are talking "functionality", not just doing something
> >> in a different manner.
> > 
> > Trivially, any Turing machine can emulate another, so they all have the
> > same functionality.  As for usefulness, top of the list for VMS are
> > logical names, clustering, fine-grained security concept, HBVS, and file
> > versions.
> 
> All of them exist in some form 

Yes, "in some form".  But that form is not nearly as useful as the VMS 
functionality.  For example, tell me how to set up a logical-name table 
which belongs to a given user or group but is cluster wide.

> except file versions and I have
> never known anyone other than VMS users who saw value in them. Sorry.

There are many things which people see no value in because they have 
never experienced them.  Of all the things I listed, this one is 
obviously of tremendous value.